Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/OLM

This is a subpage of the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard having to do with disputes about Our Lady of Medjugorje, Pavol Hnilica, any other persons who were associated with controversies surrounding Our Lady of Medjugorje, and any related issues. At this time this subpage is managed primarily by

• Robert McClenon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as volunteer mediator, and also by any editors who are participating in dispute resolution, including:
• Red Rose 13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Governor Sheng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Slp1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The discussions from Pavol Hnilica are being moved here.

There are two editors me, Red Rose 13 and Governor Sheng. We are part of the editing process on Our Lady of Medjugorje and all related pages. I just recently spent about 10 hours reading researching and then bringing this information to the Pavol Hnilica page. I am under the understanding if I bring information from a secondary, reliable source I don't need to ask permission to post. On the Our Lady of Medjugorje talk page another advanced editor Slp1 has been working with us and with her help we created a list of Excellent and reliable sources and had many discussions including archives.[1] Archive 4 [2] I pulled this information from these excellent sources list. He is now challenging these sources. We need a mediator to help us resolve these issues. To me Governor Sheng seems to have an agenda and I want the page to balanced, neutral and truthful. Please help. Because we have gone through this on other pages as well. Jozo Zovko and Pavao Žanić for example I am open to learning.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

[[3]] [[4]] [[5]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

• 1. Someone needs to oversee these pages and there many
• 2. I am open to learning guidelines that I may not be aware of and I think Governor Sheng is too. So if an expert can guide us, that would be great.
• 3. Discussions between us and an expert, neutral editor would be extremely helpful.

Summary of dispute by Governor Sheng

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The issue is going for months now. There are numerous problems here. First of all, the sources Red Rose uses in the article in dispute are Sullivan and Klimek. [6] [7]. Although I informed her that the two sources received negative peer review on the talk page of another article, she went on editing without giving any feedback.

Then, back in August, when our disputes started, Red Rose stated "An editor cannot change a whole page without consulting with other editors on the pages talk page. Bring your ideas to the talk page.

Now, they're doing the same thing at the article about Hnilica, major editing, and insertions, major reconstruction of the article, with sources negatively peer-reviewed without any consultation with other editors whatsoever. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Pavol Hnilica discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

First statement by moderator (Hnilica)

Okay. I will act as moderator, at least initially. Please read the ground rules. Be civil and concise. Some of the statements on the article talk page are long, and are hard to understand. The purpose of statements is to enable the other editors to understand the statement, not to make the editor making the statement feel better. Comment on content, not on contributors.

I will start by asking each editor to make a brief, preferably one paragraph, statement of what the issues are. I understand that the issues may include: questions about the reliability of a source or sources; questions about what Wikipedia policy is; and issues about article content. If there is a question about a source, please state what the source is, and give a very brief explanation of the issue. (We can expand on the issue later after we determine what the issues are.) If you want a particular portion of the article either changed or left the same, please say very briefly what you want. (We can expand on the issue later.) If there is a question about Wikipedia policies or guidelines, please ask it in the form of a concise question, and I will try to answer it.

Do not respond to the statements of other editors. Address your comments to me and to the community. If you want to discuss back-and-forth, do it in the section that I have provided (and other editors may ignore the discussion).

Remember that the purpose of discussion is to improve the article, and the article should provide a brief neutral statement to the readers. Please provide a brief civil and concise statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Hnilica)

Thank you for helping. There is a lot and I made it as concise as possible.
(1) Source: is a one to two sentence footnote. Does Wikipedia allow footnotes to be used as a reference? Section: World Network of Marian Devotion (10) reference. I went to that book and page 194 [8]
(2) Criminal claim: I have researched in all the books I have access to in regards to the claim of one author, Yallop, who claims Hnilica of laundering money and he is the only author that claims that. Is that allowed especially when it seems he was never convicted of anything. Does this apply here? WP:PUBLICFIGURE - "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Also, the whole paragraph seems accusatory rather than just factual statements.
(3) There are four paragraphs discussing something Hnilica was criminally indicted for and in the end found not guilty. The four paragraphs begins with “In 1992, Hnilica was indicted of criminal involvement” There is way too much detail that doesn’t relate or is not necessary. Also does this also apply here? WP:PUBLICFIGURE
(4) Source: (See last paragraph beginning with Drazen Kutlesa): called OGLEDALO PRAVDE in Croatian I have had to use google translate it [[9]] is a Primary source, self-published, directly involved in the controversy, not a reliable secondary source, not independent. It should not be used on this page or any other page related to Medjugorje. Bishop Peric was directly involved in the controversies in Medjugorje and wrote the preface & conclusion after Drazen Kutlesa compiled it for him. Discussion #1 - See here for Our Lady of Medjugorje talk page discussion including Slp1 who is our “mentor” on this page [10] and scroll down to “@Slp1:@Governor Sheng: Governor Sheng (1) I notice you are creating and editing pages…” and Discussion #2 the Hnilica talk page discussion: *[11] second to last paragraph
source issue: Also Bishop Ratko Peric was deeply involved in the controversy produced other literature and they are all primary sources and shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. Here is one: [12]
Source issue: Nikola Bulat also wrote a booklet produced by Episcopal Ordinariate Mostar. [13]
(5) This editing problem began on the Our Lady of Medjugorje page and is expanded out to most of the pages that are directly related to OLM page Jozo Zovko, Pavao Žanić, Ratko Perić, Slavko Barbarić, Tomislav Vlašić, Frane Franić, Pavol Hnilica WP:NEUTRALEDIT concerned about an agenda.
Also sometimes the reference author is named with no page number or reference link - probably just an oversight. Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the article about Hnilica. There are two books used which received negative peer review. These are: Sullivan, Randall (2004). The Miracle Detective. New York: Grove Press [14] and Medjugorje and the Supernatural: Science, Mysticism, and Extraordinary Religious Experience by Daniel Maria Klimek Oxford University Press, 2018. [15] I object these books be used in articles related to OLM. Both authors are clearly partisan, which can be seen here for Sullivan and here for Klimek. Neither Sullivan nor Klimek is never mentioned as reputable sources on the subject of Medjugorje. A list of reputable authors on the subject is given by Chris Maunder, a well-known author on the issue of apparitions, in his book "Our Lady of Nations". I can provide a quote from the book later. In short, neither author, nor Sullivan nor Klimek, is mentioned. The second issue is the misrepresentation of sources by Red Rose, twisting the wording of sources or breaking the rules of WP:SYNTH [16]. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Second Statement by Moderator (Hnilica)

Read the ground rules for this mediation again. Neither of you is following the rules. The rules say to be civil and concise; 433 words is not concise. The rules say to comment on content, not contributors. Saying that another editor is misrepresenting sources is commenting on a contributor, and can be considered a civility violation.

So I will impose a structure on second-round statements. Break your statement into up to three parts, which may consist of: sources that you wish to use or to discredit; article content issues; questions about policies and guidelines (do not pose rhetorical questions); other issues. Please summarize what you think are the issues.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Second Statements by Editors (Hnilica)

Second Statement by Red Rose 13

Question: Is this what you have in mind? Is it concise enough? There are a lot of problems but I tried to make each issue as concise as possible. Red Rose 13 (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Source Issues
(1) Ogledalo Pravde was prepared by Drazen Kutlesa for Bishop Ratko Peric who oversaw Medjugorje during the apparitions. (See the last paragraph on this page beginning with Drazen Kutlesa) Here is the pdf [[17]]

• This is a primary source - 1. Kutlesa prepared and compiled for Bishop Peric. 2. Peric wrote the Preface and Conclusion and was directly involved in the apparitions of Medjugorje.
  
• This pdf is self-published - It was printed by Izdavač: Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar translated to Publisher: Bishop's Ordinariate Mostar.
  
• Bishop Peric is not independent but was directly involved in the controversy of Medjugorje because it is part of his diocese.
  
• This pdf is not a reliable secondary source.
  

It should not be used on this page or any other page related to Medjugorje which is a controversial subject.[[18]]
If necessary I can give links to 2 discussions with our mentor, Slp1, on the Our Lady of Medjugorje talk page about this "source".
This primary source is on four other pages that are related to Our Lady of Medjugorje: Jozo Zovko, Slavko Barbarić, Tomislav Vlašić, Pavol Hnilica, Pavao Žanić.

(2) Bishop Ratko Peric produced other literature and they are all primary sources and shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. Right now they are on these pages that are directly related to Our Lady of Medjugorje: Jozo Zovko, Slavko Barbarić, Tomislav Vlašić, Ratko Perić,Romanis Pontificibus, Medjugorje International Youth Festival and Catholic Church response to the Medjugorje apparitions

(3) Nikola Bulat also wrote a book published by Episcopal Ordinariate Mostar on Our Lady of Medjugorje.[19]
I google translated the preface beginning: "Preface Don Nikola Bulat, a priest of the Split-Makarska Archdiocese, was a member of the extended Episcopal Commission for the Investigation of Events in Medjugorje, 1984-1986." A primary source and self-published, the preface written by Bishop Peric. Is on these pages: Tomislav Vlašić, Pavao Žanić,

(4) Other Miscellaneous Croatian sources that I have no idea what they are.

(5) Do I respond here regarding the Sullivan and Klimek books brought into question?

Article Content Issues
1) Criminal claims on Wikipedia.

• Example 1: The author David Yallop in his book "The Power and the Glory: Inside the Dark Heart of Pope John Paul II's Vatican" [20] states: "Hnilica was allegedly money laundering..." I have researched in all the books I have access to (15) in regards to Yallops allegation and have not found one other author even mentioning it. To me the WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Am I correct here?
  
• Example 2: Hnilica was a public figure but what is the guideline if the person was not a public figure?
  

(2) Criminal claims on Wikipedia #2: On the Hnilica page are four paragraphs discussing something Hnilica was criminally indicted for and in the end found not guilty. The four paragraphs begin with the words - “In 1992, Hnilica was indicted of criminal involvement”. There is way too much detail that doesn’t relate or is not necessary. It is my understanding that Wikipedia wants the articles to be brief, to the point and done in a neutral way. I would like to see these four paragraphs brought down to one short to medium long paragraph that includes different perspectives using reliable sources.

Questions About Policies and Guidelines
(1) Are footnotes from a book allowed to be used as a reference? And/or a reference for a controversial post? Example from Pavol Hnilica page - Title: World Network of Marian Devotion - Reference #10. Here is a link to the book and page 194 where it is located. [21] This footnote is two sentences long and out of context. Ex. I have no idea what the 5th dogma is and would need to read the source to understand it.

(2) I have noticed many red words on these pages because there are wiki links around those words. If it is red it means there is no page for it. I assume we are supposed to correct our mistakes and remove the wiki links, correct?

(3) If a source is in a foreign language, can it be used for a controversial post? Herzegovina Affair directly related to the Our Lady of Medjugorje has all Croatian sources.

(4) What happens if you cannot see and read a source for a controversial post?

Other Issues The editing problems began on the page Our Lady of Medjugorje. We both agreed we needed an expert to help us with this page. We found Slp1 and she is overseeing the page. It is a controversial page and we are moving along slowly. Then there are many pages that are directly related to the Medjugorje pages. Hnilica is one of them. Here are the rest that I am aware of at this time: Jozo Zovko, Slavko Barbarić, Tomislav Vlašić, René Laurentin, Frane Franić, Pavol Hnilica, Pavao Žanić, Ratko Perić, Petar Palić, Catholic Church response to the Medjugorje apparitions, Herzegovina Affair, Romanis Pontificibus, Catholic charismatic renewal, Medjugorje International Youth Festival. We need an experienced, neutral editor to oversee these pages and guide us. If you look at some of the pages history and talk pages, the difficulties are evident.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Second Statement by Governor Sheng

Source Issues

Regarding the article about Hnilica. There are two books used which received negative peer review. These are: Sullivan, Randall (2004). The Miracle Detective. New York: Grove Press [22] and Medjugorje and the Supernatural: Science, Mysticism, and Extraordinary Religious Experience by Daniel Maria Klimek Oxford University Press, 2018. [23] I object these books be used in articles related to OLM. Both authors are clearly partisan, which can be seen here for Sullivan and here for Klimek. Neither Sullivan nor Klimek is never mentioned as reputable sources on the subject of Medjugorje. A list of reputable authors on the subject is given by Chris Maunder, a well-known author on the issue of apparitions, in his book "Our Lady of Nations". I can provide a quote from the book later. In short, neither author, nor Sullivan nor Klimek, is mentioned.

Article Content Issues

The issues with the content I have regard only to that part of the content that stems from the biased sources. --Governor Sheng (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Third Statement by Moderator (Hnilica)

I will respond to some of the questions now. Others may require longer, so that I may add another statement. I have an overarching question at this time. Are the issues that we are trying to resolve about Pavol Hnilica or about Our Lady of Medjugorje? If there are issues about OLM, we can open a separate dispute about Our Lady of Medjugorje. The Wikipedia policies concerning the two subjects are distinct. Hnilica was a historical twentieth-century person, and we should present the facts of his life factually. The visions of Our Lady of Medjugorje are a matter of considerable dispute within the Catholic Church, and we should summarize the discussion and views. We should avoid letting OLM complicate the matter of describing the life of a bishop. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Overall Issues Please provide a one-sentence answer to each of these questions:

• Should we open a separate DRN discussion about Our Lady of Medjugorje?
• Do we have an expert available to help us?
• Do we need to find another expert to help us?

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Source Issues There appear to be very many sources that are questioned. I will defer trying to deal with each of them, but each of you should provide a bullet-point list of questioned sources in your response. It is not necessary at this time to write at length about each of the sources.

Article Content Issues It appears that there is an issue about the extent to which allegations of criminal conduct may be discussed in the article. Is the question one of verifiability or one of due weight? If the question is one of due weight, has compromise on the length of the statement been considered?

Questions About Policies and Guidelines If footnotes in a book contain additional information that is not elsewhere in the book, the footnotes may be used as references to the same extent as the book may be used. The question is whether the book is considered a reliable source. If so, the footnotes are reliable.

See the guideline on red links. If red links can be resolved by converting them to links, that should be done. If they are clearly useless, they should be removed. In doubtful cases, it is probably best to leave them alone in order to minimize the number of points of contention in a contentious dispute.

Other Issues I am not an expert on the subject matter. If you have an expert, and you refer to User:Slp1, rely on her. If you need another expert, then ask for help in finding one.

Third Statements by Editors (Hnilica)

Third Statement by Red Rose 13

Sorry one more question: Is this Wikipedia using American English or UK English?

Overall Issues
1. In regards to Our Lady of Medjugorje page, we don't need to open a DNR because we are overseen by @Slp1:. Perhaps Slp1 would be willing to respond here.
2. In regards to all the other pages, I think we need an additional expert unless Slp1 wants to take them all on. It is a very large number of pages.
3. If Slp1 is not able to take on all the pages associated with Our Lady of Medjugorje that are listed above, then we we do need another neutral expert to oversee those.

Article Content Issues
The legal issue #1 regarding should allegations of criminal activity be allowed on Wikipedia when only one author claims this - verifiability is an issue.
The legal issue #2 is in regards to an actual indictment of another case and in time found not guilty - due weight and adding a different perspective is an issue and yes I mentioned it on the talk page.

Source Issues

Primary sources on Wikipedia involving Bishop Ratko Peric

This source is on the Hnilica page and others from the list above:

• Ogledalo Pravde prepared by Drazen Kutlesa for Bishop Ratko Peric and Publisher: Bishop's Ordinariate Mostar not academic but a compilation :of interviews and statements.
  

These Peric books are on one of the other pages related to Our Lady of Medjugorje:

• Međugorske stranputice" [The Medjugorje side roads] by Bishop Ratko Peric
• "U povodu 10. obljetnice smrti fra Slavka Barbarića" By Ratko Peric [24]
• "Vlašićeva upletenost u "međugorski fenomen" By Ratko Peric
• "Canonical Status of Rev. Father Tomislav Vlašić, OFM By Ratko Peric - the link takes you here [25]
• "Ordinarijat i „Mladifest" by Bishop Ratko Peric - [26]
• "The Attacks of the Medjugorje 'Apparition' Against the Bishop Pavao Žanić" - [27]

Primary source Bulat on one of the pages related to OLM page

• Istina će nas osloboditi [28] by Priest Nikola Bulat Published: Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar or Bishop's Ordinariate Mostar, also self-published.

• On this page Herzegovina Affair related to OLM - all the sources are in Croatian

Sources to keep

• The Miracle Detective by Randall Sullivan who is independent of the Medjugorje Apparitions, a respected author, book is in English and published by Grove Press , a secondary source - book review from Publishers Weekly [29]
• Science, Mysticism, and Extraordinary Religious Experience by Daniel Maria Klimek, a Franciscan friar & scholar of Theology who is Independent from the Medjugorje apparitions (secondary source), is published in English by Oxford University Press academic, 2018 (Maunder's book published 2016).

Other Issues
Yes we need help on the many pages mentioned above that are directly related to the Our Lady of Medjugorje page. We might need more than one. Do I ask here for expert wikipedians interested for the long haul? Our current mentor on the OLM page for the past two weeks has not been active. I have left a message on her talk page to find out what she would like to do.Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Third Statement by Governor Sheng

Overall Issues

I'll write here about Perić being used as a source and why I think he can be used as a reference even in some of the cases when he might be considered self-published or a primary source.

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications

— [30]

Perić is "an established subject-matter expert" and his "works in the relevant field has been previously published by reliable, independent publications". Proof: [31], [32] [33], [34], [35], [36]. He is a regular contributor to Crkva u svijetu and Bogoslovska smotra, theological and scholarly magazines published by the University of Split and the University of Zagreb respectively and Hercegovina, a scholarly magazine published by the University of Mostar. Not only that, but Perić's other books received positive peer reviews. Example: [37] [38] [39]. He also served as the rector of the Pontifical Croatian College of St. Jerome in Rome and was a professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, the University of Zagreb, and the Theological Institute of Mostar, which functions as part of the Catholic Faculty of Theology, University of Sarajevo. Thus he is a credible, reputable author.

What this rule states is that Perić, as an expert in his field (theology), whose work was published by reliable, independent publications (Crkva u svijetu, University of Split; Bogoslovska Smotra, University of Zagreb; Hercegovina, University of Mostar), can be used as a source even when he is self-published. The peer reviews do not need to be related to the books or other articles about Perić, but must be related to him as an author in general. Not only that, but the peer reviews are just an additional plus since the publication of his articles in "reliable, independent publications" will suffice to meet this Wikipedia criterion, which is that we can quote Perić and use him as a reliable reference even when he is a self-published author. That being said, Wikipedia allows usage of primary sources - when they're considered WP:RS. [40]

We can see from the above paragraphs that Perić is a reliable source, and as such, can be also used when his work is a primary source. In conclusion, Perić can be used as a reference when he is 1) a primary source and 2) a self-published source because as a reliable source he is exempted from Wikipedia's general rules on primary and self-published sources.

All of the above applies to Nikola Bulat, a professor at the University of Split, since he is also mentioned as a disputed source (Proof: [41], [42], [43], [44]) and Dražen Kutleša, who was a professor at the Theological Institute of Mostar, University of Sarajevo.

Note: This is my opinion, and I'm asking for a check whether I'm wrong.

Regarding Sullivan and Klimek, I emphasise that I gave an opinion on their books in my previous statements. --Governor Sheng (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (Hnilica)

The easy question has to do with variety of English. The English Wikipedia policy is that the regional variety of English is determined on an article-by-article basis. See the policy on varieties of English. The article on Pavol Hnilica says that it uses British English.

As to the charges of crimes against Hnilica, he was charged with and acquitted of various offenses, and the article should describe those charges and proceedings, with appropriate references. It is probably easier to address content issues in terms of specific content. That is, what paragraphs in the articles is there disagreement about? Each editor should identify any material in the current article that they want to change. Then we can figure out how to resolve specific disputes.

With regard to sources, we can follow either or both of two approaches. We can ask the Reliable Source Noticeboard to rule on whether each source is reliable for the intended purposes. Or we can first spell out what paragraphs in the article are in question. Or we can do both.

Also, what do we need an expert about, and why?

In the Items to Change, below, list the items that you want changed in the article. The purpose of this proceeding is to improve the article. If any of your questions do not have to do with the article on Hnilica, but are about any other article, they should be addressed on the talk page of the other article, unless we open another DRN. We are only discussing Our Lady of Medjugorje to the extent that Bishop Hnilica was involved (which is much of Hnilica's career). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

In the Other Matters below, answer whether you want to take any source questions to RSN, answer what you want an expert for and why, and ask any other questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Hnilica)

Fourth statement by Red Rose 13

Items to Change

A. In regards to Hnilica he was not charged with and acquitted of various offenses.

Is this better? I thought you wanted me to write up what it should be. I took out the copy and paste of the 4 paragraphs in question.

(1) Hnilica was accused by journalist Yallop of laundering money and no other author even mentions it. On top of that he was never indicted or legally accused. The issue is: "does Wikipedia allow criminal accusations by a journalist to be on Wikipedia." I know if he was living it would not be allowed. Does someone on this board know the answer to this? I don't think this accusation should be on this page.

(2) He was indicted of one thing and later acquitted of it. But there are 4 paragraphs which should be just one or two. Also missing is that the pope asked him to meet with the person involved. The 4 paragraphs in question begin with "In 1992, Hnilica was indicted of criminal involvement" and end with paragraph "The second trial took place in March 2000..."

_________________________________________
And this is approximately how I think it should be written.

In 1992, Hnilica was indicted of criminal involvement in the case of the collapse of the Banco Ambrosiano, of which the Vatican Bank was a partial owner. The investigators found Hnilica's2.8 million USD checks from Hnilica's Vatican Bank account. At first, Hnilica claimed that he didn't want anything from Roberto Calvi's briefcase, but was hoping that Carboni would launch a campaign that would improve the Vatican's image. Carboni was the last to see Calvi alive and hoped to get four million dollars for the briefcase. He told Hnilica that the documents in the briefcase would clear the Vatian Bank of any wrong doing. Pope John Paul II and the secretary of state Cardinal Casaroli authorized Hnilica to negotiate. Hnilica then said he was hoping he would get the documents in the briefcase and that it would clear the Vatican Bank in the event of Banco Ambrosiano collapse. Carboni, Hnilica and Lena were all found guilty on March 1993, with Carboni receiving five, Hnilica three, and Lena two and a half years in prison. All three verdicts were later annulled by the Appeals Court due to an error in procedure.

The second trial took place in March 2000, where Carboni and Lena were convicted, and Hnilica was acquitted. According to Yallop, the court determined that the Vatican had reneged on the deal and failed to produce the money so Hnilica was not able to take possession of Calvi's documents and the court ruled that Hnilica acted under duress.

This needs to be in another area, does not relate to the court case. Chris Maunder believes that Hnilica's support for Medjugorje was a burden because of his involvement with this Vatican Bank scandal from the 1980s.

B. I plan to address another paragraph tomorrow.

Other Matters

Fourth statement by Governor Sheng

Items to Change

Other Matters

Fifth Statement by Moderator (Hnilica)

I have tried to avoid offering my opinions, but I will try to summarize my view of how policies and guidelines affect some of the issues.

My opinion on the criminal allegations is that there is no need to mention any allegations that were not dealt with by a government. The fact that he was charged by governments with certain offenses and was not convicted should be discussed. At how much length is a question of due weight.

My own opinion is that the questions about sourcing may be getting more attention than is needed. The objective should be to provide a short encyclopedic description of the career and the life of Hnilica, which was largely involved with issues about the veracity of OLM. So we should focus first on what the article should say, and only deal with sourcing issues when the sources affect what the article will say.

Provide a brief list of points in the article that should, in your view, be changed. We can deal with sources after we narrow down the issues about the text of the article that are affected by the sources.

Whatever you say, be concise. If you can't summarize the issue in 300 words, it isn't a summary. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Fifth Statements by Editors (Hnilica)

Fifth Statement by Red Rose 13

Ok I will try again. In certain sections the way things are worded and the statements pieced together portray a biased view.

Article Content Issues 1) The paragraphs deleted which can be seen here [[45]] need to be put back in the article. These two sources have already been approved by Slp1 our mentor on Our Lady of Medjugorje and she explained why. See this [[46]] and this discussion is about many sources including Ogledalo Pravde by Bishop Peric scroll down to "Just a note Foley"), prepared by Kutlesa, The Miracle Detective by Sullivan and Medjugorje and the Supernatural - Science, Mysticism, and Extraordinary Religious Experience by Klimek [[47]]

2) The paragraph beginning with "David Yallop claims..." The first sentence needs to be removed as discussed. The rest of the paragraph needs to deal with facts not insinuations or opinions and the interpretation from the source information needs to be discussed. Any sentence without a citation or one that is not working, needs to be deleted.

3) The 4 paragraphs beginning with "In 1992, Hnilica was indicted..." same problems as above including placing miscellaneous statements to make a point. The fact that Pope John Paul II and the secretary of state Cardinal Casaroli authorized Hnilica to negotiate needs to be included.

4) This needs to be placed elsewhere. "Chris Maunder believes that Hnilica's support for Medjugorje was a burden because of his involvement with this Vatican Bank scandal from the 1980s."

Other Issues

There are fifteen pages that are directly related to Our Lady of Medjugorje. Right now we are having the same difficulties on Frane Franić and Tomislav Vlašić. After we resolve this page, we could go page by page. If you click on the page Tomislav Vlasic and scroll to the bottom of the page you can see them all there. And/or we can ask for an editor like yourself, highly experienced in editing and conflict resolution to oversee these pages. In the past I worked with a Master Editor IV who helped us create a perfect page. He was impartial and I learned a great deal.

Fifth Statement by Governor Sheng

Article Content Issues

I disagree that criminal acts, not prosecuted by the government, shouldn't be in the article. Hitler was never prosecuted for his crimes, and yet, we know he did heinous acts and we discuss them in relevant articles. The same applies here. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia rule that suggests that only criminal acts prosecuted by the government can be discussed in articles. If such crimes are worthy of mentioning, then they should be added to an article.

Regarding the deleted paragraphs: everything that comes from biased sources, such as Klimek and Sullivan, and is an extraordinary claim, that is a claim that cannot be supported by other secondary sources, shouldn't be in the body of the article. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Sixth Statement by Moderator (Hnilica)

General Comments by Moderator

Here is my plan for proceeding. There are two specific types of issues, changes to the text of the article, and sources to decide on. Specific issues about changes to the article can be published as RFCs while we are continuing to work on other issues. Questions about specific sources can be taken to the Reliable Source Noticeboard while we are continuing to work on other issues.

I have created a work page where I will be developing RFCs, at Talk:Pavol Hnilica/Temp. The RFC will be copied to Talk:Pavol Hnilica when we have established what the issues are. I have identified two issues. You may edit the temporary page to tweak the wording of the RFC. Do not vote on the RFC. Do not make statements. At this point, we are preparing to print the ballots, so we can discuss the text of the ballots, but we are not voting or !voting yet.

I think I know what the first two issues defined by Red Rose 13 are, and have stated them. For the other two issues, Red Rose 13 needs to provide the text that they want, so that I can submit it in an RFC.

I am a mediator and not a referee. If I express an opinion, it is not binding, and an editor can request an RFC.

All discussion should be focused on specific parts of the article that should be changed, or on sources. Changes to the article will be made only by agreement between the editors or by RFC.

Issues That Have Been Identified

• 1. Restore three paragraphs from Our Lady of Medjugorje

• 2. Remove paragraph beginning with "David Yallop".

Criminal Complaints

Hitler is a special case. There were extensive judicial proceedings, at Nuremberg and elsewhere, against his governmental organizations. My opinion is that, since there were investigations into money-laundering by Hnilica, in which he was acquitted, we should only mention those proceedings. (He is involved in enough unresolved stuff, such as the status of the later Medjugorje visions, as it is.) State what you want to change in the article.

Also, please read WP:Be Specific at DRN. If you want the wording of a paragraph changed, you have to change it.

Other Material

Identify the material that you want to change in the article.

Sixth Statements by Editors (Hnilica)

Sixth Statement by Red Rose 13

Just one thing to clear up first. Hnilica was investigated in regards to stolen property and was acquitted. He was never investigated regarding Yallops allegations of money laundering and that is why I think his statement should be removed.
Is this what you have in mind? I am not finished but I am at 305 words. May I add more.

Source Issues
(1) Ogledalo pravde translated as Mirror of Justice [[48]] * Dražen Kutleša prepared the book for Bishop Peric, not Independent * Book was published by Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar translated as Episcopal Ordinariate Mostar where Bishop Peric was. * The Bishop at the time was Ratko Perić who was overseeing Medjugorje and was extremely negative about Medjugorje. Bishop Peric wrote the preface and conclusion to this book. Church publisher not good objective fact-checking. It is a compilation of interviews and statements and he added a few comments of his own. That makes it a collection of primary sources as per WP:PSTS.

(2) In the references there are three missing detailed information including a page number. #21, #23 & #24. It is impossible to evaluate with no information.

Criminal Allegation Issues
(1) Regarding the 4 paragraphs starting with "In 1992, Hnilica was indicted of criminal involvement..." I worked very hard on this already and rewrote the whole section. It is impossible to just go sentence by sentence. Would it be possible to just post what I wrote? It is 255 words long. It would be a comparison of the 4 paragraphs to the two I shrunk down to. Maybe we could present it to Governor Sheng. He might like it.

Other Issues
There are two sentences at the very end of the article that are controversial and using a primary source. I think they should be removed as well. The sentences start with "Dražen Kutleša writing about the matter for Bishop Peric..."

Sixth Statement by Governor Sheng

Source Issues

Criminal Allegation Issues

Other Issues

Seventh Statement by Moderator (Hnilica)

We will continue to try to identify specific changes either to agree to or to publish in an RFC.

The three questions that I have listed in Talk:Pavol Hnilica/Temp will be published shortly unless there is an objection. When they are published, the RFCs run for 30 days. (If more questions are identified, more RFCs can be published in a few days.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Criminal Complaints

User:Red Rose 13 says that they have rewritten the four paragraphs beginning with "In 1992, Hnilica was indicted". Provide the alternate text below. If User:Governor Sheng agrees, the article is revised. If they disagree, I will formulate an RFC with the two versions as alternatives. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Here it is rewritten: In 1992, Hnilica was indicted of criminal involvement in the case of the collapse of the Banco Ambrosiano, of which the Vatican Bank was a partial owner. The investigators found Hnilica's2.8 million USD checks from Hnilica's Vatican Bank account. At first, Hnilica claimed that he didn't want anything from Roberto Calvi's briefcase, but was hoping that Carboni would launch a campaign that would improve the Vatican's image. Carboni was the last to see Calvi alive and hoped to get four million dollars for the briefcase. He told Hnilica that the documents in the briefcase would clear the Vatian Bank of any wrong doing. Pope John Paul II and the secretary of state Cardinal Casaroli authorized Hnilica to negotiate. Hnilica then said he was hoping he would get the documents in the briefcase and that it would clear the Vatican Bank in the event of Banco Ambrosiano collapse. Carboni, Hnilica and Lena were all found guilty on March 1993, with Carboni receiving five, Hnilica three, and Lena two and a half years in prison. All three verdicts were later annulled by the Appeals Court due to an error in procedure.

The second trial took place in March 2000, where Carboni and Lena were convicted, and Hnilica was acquitted. According to Yallop, the court determined that the Vatican had reneged on the deal and failed to produce the money so Hnilica was not able to take possession of Calvi's documents and the court ruled that Hnilica acted under duress. Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the rewritten version by Red Rose 13, but note to be taken, this cannot be considered a bullet-proof version, as both of us are quite unfamiliar with that episode of Hnilica's life. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Source Issues

Unless Governor Sheng objects, we will delete notes 21, 23, and 24.

Red Rose 13 objects to the Kutlesa book, which is the basis of notes 25, 26, and 27. What does Governor Sheng say? Does Red Rose 13 want to delete the last paragraph, which is sourced to the book, or to leave the paragraph in, but unsourced?

• This sentence we need to delete the Kutlesa link which is reference 25 and place citation needed "Hnilica was a member of the "Queen of Peace" Committee, along with other supporters of the Medjugorje apparitions: Msgr. Dr. Frane Franić, retired Archbishop of Split and Makarska, Father Tomislav Pervan, Father Ivan Landeka, Father Slavko Barbarić, Father Jozo Zovko and Leonard Oreč.[25]
• The last two sentences need to be deleted as they are contentious with a primary source - references 26 & 27 - Dražen Kutleša writing about the matter for Bishop Peric who took over from Bishop Zanic, reported that in March 1994, while in Mostar, Hnilica falsely presented himself as the Pope's personal delegate[26] and attributed statements to Pope John Paul II supportive of Medjugorje, which were dismissed as false by the Vatican.[27] Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I object to removing Kutleša, who by no standard, can be considered a primary source. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Other Material Identify any more material that you want to change in the article.

Seventh Statements by Editors (Hnilica)

Seventh Statement by Red Rose 13

I am wondering if we should have the sources evaluated first if they are the issue, before the RfC.

Source Issues

Criminal Allegation Issues

Other Issues
(1) In reading the introduction I realized that we would need to edit the section to reflect the changes in the body of page once we are finished.
(2) Throughout the article there are words that are affected by MOS:CLAIM like cult, alleged, claim that need to be replaced by neutral words. There are also biased statements that need to be neutralized.
(3) The sentences after the words "David Yallop claims..." that begin a paragraph - I am looking carefully at them and their sources. The way it is written seems biased and presumptive.

Seventh Statement by Governor Sheng

Source Issues

Criminal Allegation Issues

Other Issues

Eighth Statement by Moderator (Hnilica)

Either editor may edit the article to replace the paragraphs on the indictment with the version that they have agreed to. Done. Red Rose 13 (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Red Rose 13 wonders whether we should evaluate the sources before starting the RFC. That only seems to apply to the Kutlesa allegation.

The second question (Yallop) will be published as an RFC, followed by the first (restoring OLM language).

We will continue to try to identify specific changes either to agree to or to publish in an RFC.

Unless there is agreement about Kutlesa, the question about whether the source is primary or secondary will be taken to RSN

Red Rose 13 says that there are non-neutral words that need to be neutralized. Discuss those proposed changes with Governor Sheng in the section below marked Discussion of Wording.

Other Material

Identify any more material that you want to change in the article.

Eighth Statements by Editors (Hnilica)

Eighth Statement by Red Rose 13

Question are we allowed to vote/comment in the RFC?Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for the length of 400 words but I had to explain every little detail. If you want me to cut it back I will.
There is a problem submitting Ogledalo pravde to the RSN. It is completely in Croatian. I had to tediously google translate every page I looked at. We can either provide an explanation when we submit it or perhaps there are editors on RSN that can translate or understand Croatian. Also I think once Governor Sheng reads the details below, he might see that this truly is a primary source:
(1) Ogledalo pravde translated as Mirror of Justice Here is the pdf [[49]]
(2) Dražen Kutleša prepared the book for the Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar which is overseen by Bishop Peric - Google translated from title page:
MIRROR JUSTICE
Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar
about alleged apparitions and messages
in Medjugorje
Prepared by
Don Drazen
Mostar, 2001.
(3) Drazen Kuktlesa wrote WORD OF THE EDITOR on page 9 and the beginning paragraph google translated: "By order of the local bishop, Msgr. Ratko Perić I collect and computer-prepare various statements, announcements, comments and studies related to the Medjugorje phenomena, which is signed by any officer of the Ordinariate in the past period."
(4) Bishop Ratko Peric oversaw Medjugorje during the apparitions from 1993 until his retirement in 2020. He took over from Bishop Pavao Zanic who oversaw Medjugorje during the apparitions from the beginning in 1981 to his retirement in 1993.
(3) Book was published by Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar translated as Episcopal Ordinariate Mostar where Bishop Peric was. Here is a link to the current Bishop of Mostar that took over from Ratko Peric [ https://md-tm.ba/dijecezanski-biskup]. The Bishop oversees Biskupski ordinarijat (Episcopal Ordinariate Mostar} [[50]]
(4) Bishop Peric wrote the forward (page 11) and conclusion (page 313-314) to this pdf.
(5) It is a compilation of interviews and statements including from the previous Bishop Zanic and Bishop Peric added a few comments of his own. That makes it a collection of primary sources as per WP:PSTS.
In conclusion:
(1) This is a primary source
(2) self-published
(3) Not independent from the apparitions but directly involved.
(4) Kutlesa prepared and compiled this for Episcopal Ordinariate Mostar
(5) and Episcopal Ordinariate Mostar published it.
(6) Bishop Peric and Bishop Zanic over saw the Episcopal Ordinariate Mostar during their time
(6) this should not be used on any page that has to do with Medjugorje
(7) This primary source is on six other pages that are related to Our Lady of Medjugorje: Our Lady of Medjugorje Jozo Zovko, Slavko Barbarić, Tomislav Vlašić, Pavol Hnilica, Pavao Žanić. Red Rose 13 (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Ninth Statement by Moderator (Hnilica)

Of course you should take part in the RFC. You might be able to persuade the community. This is your opportunity to make your case. Be concise; they are not interested in reading walls of text.

There has been disagreement about whether Kutlesa can be used as a source, and now Red Rose 13 says that there may be a problem taking Kutlesa to RSN. Is there an alternative? What else should we do? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Other Material

Identify any more material that you want to change in the article.

By the way, any consensus to change the text of the article implies a change to the lede paragraph. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Ninth Statements by Editors (Hnilica)

Ninth Statement by Red Rose 13

In regards to the problems posting Ogledalo pravde to RSN because it is in Croatian.
(1) Is there a community of editors who can read Croatian?
or
(2) Is there a way we can give the details like I posted already in our discussion?
or
(3) Do we present this to RFC? Is RFC to the general pool of editors?
These are just my immediate thoughts. Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Govenor Sheng you already placed Ogledalo pravde on RSN with no response [[51]]

Governor Sheng you also placed the references for this article on the RSN. "An article on Tomislav Vlašić and the reliability of the sources used. [[52]] The expert editor Slp1 that is working with us the Our Lady Of Medjugorje page answered the request and here it is: "As you know, Governor Sheng, I have taken a stricter line with some of these on Our Lady of Medjugorje because not only are they not independent, but some are basically self published AND directly involved in the controversies surrounding Medjugorje.(e.g Peric, Bulat, Dražen Kutleša, Laurentin ). For a WP:BLP, you should use the highest quality independent sources available, and there are lots and lots available for this man. There is little need for some of these, which basically boil down to being primary sources in the events of this man's life." Slp1 (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• I completely agree with her and include Bishop Zanic to this list. It seems to me we have our answer. Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Tenth Statement by Moderator (Hnilica)

In the absence of any other policy or guideline, I will post the question of reliability of Ogledalo pravde on RSN again, and if there is no response, I will pose the question of reliability as an RFC. An RFC is publicized in a few ways, including that it is listed on a master list of RFCs that some editors read and respond to (much as AFDs are listed on master lists of AFDs that some editors read). Also, User:Yapperbot provides random notifications of RFCs to editors who have requested to receive notice of RFCs. So RFCs do go to the pool of general editors. We are more likely to get a response this way than by not using an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Other Material

Identify any more material that you want to change in the article. Discussion of wording may continue. When any more specific issues are identified, RFCs will be used. Otherwise I may put this case on hold if there is an RFC about a source and no current discussion of content. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Statement 10.1 by Moderator

User:Red Rose 13 - If you can add the question about Ogledalo Pravde to RSN, along with your explanatory notes, please do that. I will then add to it anything else that needs to be added. Ok it is added. Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Red Rose 13 - I will add my own statement within 48 hours to provide context, and will not be taking a position on reliability but explaining why reliability of the source is relevant to Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

What User:Slp1 wrote about applying BLP standards to the Vlašić article does not apply to the Hnilica article, but we also need to consider verifiability in biographies of dead persons. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Tenth Statements by Editors (Hnilica)

Tenth Statement by Red Rose 13

I plan to go through the article again later today. After we have cleared things out, may we then start adding things?
Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Ok that sounds good but I would like to add some facts to the post is that ok?
These facts with links might help the evaluations on RSN - This is what I added to the RSN board:
Questioning the reliability of the source.
(1) Ogledalo pravde translated as Mirror of Justice. In Croation. Here is the pdf which is available online [[53]]
(2) About the people involved in the apparitions of Our Lady of Medjugorje
(3) Dražen Kutleša prepared/compiled the book for the Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar (translated as Episcopal Ordinariate Mostar) and Bishop Ratko Peric - Episcopal Ordinariate Mostar published it.

(a) Title page translated:

MIRROR JUSTICE -Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar -about alleged apparitions and messages in Medjugorje - Prepared by Don Drazen - Mostar, 2001.

(b) Drazen Kuktlesa wrote WORD OF THE EDITOR on page 9 of the document and the beginning paragraph translated:

"By order of the local bishop, Msgr. Ratko Perić tried I collect and computer-prepare various statements, announcements, comments and studies related to the Medjugorje phenomena, which is signed by any officer of the Ordinariate in the past period."

(4) Bishop Peric (Bishop Zanic before him) oversaw Medjugorje and the Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar

(a) Link to the current Bishop of Mostar that took over from Ratko Peric [[54]]. The Bishop oversees :Episcopal Ordinariate Mostar [[55]]

(5) Bishop Peric wrote the forward (page 11) and conclusion (page 313-314).
(6) It is a compilation of interviews and statements of people involved in the Medjugorje apparitions including the previous Bishop Zanic and Bishop Peric.
(7) Not independent from the apparitions but directly involved.
(8) It is on six other pages that are related to Our Lady of Medjugorje: Our Lady of Medjugorje Jozo Zovko, Slavko Barbarić, Tomislav Vlašić, Pavol Hnilica, Pavao Žanić.
(9) Reliability on Wikipedia is important. Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Tenth Statement by Governor Sheng

I'll elaborate on my proposal tomorrow. --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Eleventh Statement by Moderator (Hnilica)

I am changing the rules for discussion about changes to the wording intended to restore neutral point of view. Propose changes to the wording in the section marked Discussion of Wording. Any suggestion that is not objected to within 72 hours is considered approved, and the editor who suggested it may make the change in the article. If the other editor objects, we will discuss further and may either try to compromise, or submit a Request for Comments. The rule against replying to each other in the statements is still in effect. That is, discussion is permitted and encouraged where I say it is permitted and encouraged. Discussion is also permitted in the section marked Back-and-Forth Discussion.

So: Discussion of changes to the wording continues, and the RFCs are in progress, and the inquiry is back at RSN. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Eleventh Statements by Editors (Hnilica)

Do you think we should add to the RFC - something like this? please reword - Bishop Peric created this book with the aid of his editor and published it. Should it be used for controversial or contentious posts? Red Rose 13 (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• I am requesting an official conflict resolution for this page. Frane Franic [[56]]. Thank you. Edit warring again. Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• Robert McClenon there are so many issues that I am wondering if it would be best to deal with it all on the pages themselves along with a Master Editor overseeing the many pages, to correct & guide us. What do you think? Where do we go to request one? Are you one? We need someone to take over the pages and oversee our edits. Thank you! Red Rose 13 (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the content of the article, since the main argument for removing Yallop's suggestion that Hnilica was laundering money "in and out of Medjugorje", I suggest removing the rest, until supported by other reliable authors:

Biography section – 4th paragraph

John Paul II never doubted Hnilica and his work. In fact the two men had a close friendship for many years.[7] "Hnilica was even accorded the rare privilege of concelebrating mass with the Holy Father in the Papal chapel."[7] He recounted afterwards how they breakfasted together.[7]

I said unto him. "Holy Father, only you have a bigger diocese. It comprises the whole world. Mine comes right after that size. Peking-Moscow-Berlin." The Pope said, "This is your mission field. Find yourself the best Christians as Missionaries!"

This especially for the last paragraph of the section, since it's irrelevant. Serves to make a eulogy, rather than an encyclopedic article.

Marian apparitions – Our Lady of Fatima

On March 25, 1984 Pope John Paul II endeavored to completely accomplish what Our Lady of Fatima had requested seven decades earlier in 1917. She asked that Russia be consecrated to her Immaculate Heart to be done in "full communion and coordination with the world's bishops."

As if this is factual... "She asked"... Says who?

Besides, the whole paragraph can be reduced greatly.

Marian apparitions – Our Lady of Medjugorje

Here, a context should be further expanded with the information from Kutleša.

"Hnilica visited Medjugorje many times. He "was said to have the ear of John Paul II," and he reported that "the Pope is privately interested in Medjugorje, seeing it as a continuation of Fatima in the battle with communism."[8]"

Dražen Kutleša writing about the matter for Bishop Peric who took over from Bishop Zanic, reported that in March 1994, while in Mostar, Hnilica falsely presented himself as the Pope's personal delegate[25] and attributed statements to Pope John Paul II supportive of Medjugorje, which were dismissed as false by the Vatican.[26]

Marian apparitions – Our Lady of Medjugorje

"The current Bishop Hendriks explains that the title ‘Lady of All Nations’ is “in itself theologically admissible” which includes praying with the Madonna but it is not to be understood as a recognition of the supernatural nature of the phenomena.[12]"

Unnecessary explanation with the purpose of POV-pushing and watering it down. Simply put, the cult is banned. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Twelfth Statement by Moderator (Hnilica and others)

User:Red Rose 13, User:Governor Sheng:

Do we need to expand the scope of this content dispute? Are both of you also willing to include Frane Franic? Are there any other articles that are also disputed? Are they also about bishops? How many articles are involved?

Is Our Lady of Medjugorje also a matter of dispute? The comment was made in the back-and-forth: "Our Lady of Medjugorje isn't a person; though some people might object :) Nonetheless, the rule on living people doesn't apply here... obviously." Yes. You didn't ask, but there are at least two different questions. The first is whether Our Lady of Medjugorje is Mary of Nazareth. That is not a question that Wikipedia will try to answer. The second is what various people have said about the first question, that is, whether the visions and interior locutions should be believed to be from Mary of Nazareth. And the different views within the Catholic Church and in at least one breakaway sect are various.

User:Slp1, who was assisting on certain pages, has not edited in more than a week. If she returns to editing, she is welcome either as a party to this dispute or a volunteer.

Do we need to expand the scope of this content dispute? Do not edit war.

Wikipedia does not have different ranks of editors. A Master Editor is either an editor who displays some sort of a medal, often made of a science-fiction material, indicating their years of service or numbers of edits, and these are humorous, or a member of the Editorial Board, which is elected to decide content disputes. An editorial board has been periodically proposed and never adopted, and would probably be inconsistent with the wiki concept. So we are all volunteer editors. Do we need to expand the scope of this content dispute resolution?

Please remember to sign all of your statements.

I will address your Eleventh Statements shortly, but I first wanted to know whether we are expanding the scope of the content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Twelfth Statements by Editors (Hnilica and others)

Twelfth Statement by Red Rose 13

Thank you for your question about whether we should expand the scope of the content dispute. Yes it seems it is time to include all of the pages involved. Some pages seem ok at the moment but I will list them all below. They also can be seen if you go to the Pavol Hnilica and scroll to the bottom of the page and see the Medjugorje box at the bottom of the page. The need I see is this:` we need an arbitrator who can either be you who is helping us with conflict resolution or two people, you and also an arbitrator. We need someone to take over the pages and oversee our edits and correct us when necessary. User:Slp1 would be great if she is willing. Slp1 was doing that on the Our Lady of Medjugorje page but she stopped corresponding back around the end of March.
Here is the list and we could discover more in the future.
Our Lady of Medjugorje, Catholic Church response to the Medjugorje apparitions
Bishops in charge of Mejugorje:
Pavao Žanić, Ratko Perić, Petar Palić (the current Bishop)
Prominent supporters:
Jozo Zovko, Slavko Barbarić, Tomislav Vlašić, René Laurentin, Frane Franić, Pavol Hnilica
Miscellaneous topics:
Herzegovina Affair, Romanis Pontificibus, Catholic charismatic renewal, Medjugorje International Youth Festival

Twelfth Statement by Governor Sheng

I agree on expanding the scope, for all the articles Red Rose 13 mentioned in the section above. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thirteenth Statement by Moderator (Medjugorje)

Before I can decide to go forward with mediation, I will ask:

• Why have you decided that you need a mediator or arbitrator for so many related topics?
• What in particular is the difficulty that you are having in editing collaboratively?
• Are there any particular overriding questions that need to be addressed?

If the underlying issue has to do with differences of opinion as to the nature of the visions and messages of Our Lady of Medjugorje, because all of the clerics seem to have been involved with those controversies, then perhaps we should focus on Our Lady of Medjugorje, and after that is resolved, all of the biographies of the bishops can be made consistent with what we say about OLM.

• Do the underlying issues all have to do with how to provide a neutral encyclopedic description of what various people and sources have said about Our Lady of Medjugorje?

If there is some other issue also, what is it?

Statement 13.1 by Moderator

Waiting for a statement by User:Governor Sheng as to whether we should expand the scope of the content dispute to Our Lady of Medjugorje. Since all forms of content dispute resolution except RFC are voluntary, both editors must agree to expand the scope of mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Thirteenth Statements by Editors (Medjugorje)

Thirteenth Statement by Red Rose 13

Why have you decided that you need a mediator or arbitrator for so many related topics?

• Because all of them but one are using primary sources for contentious or controversial statements. We need a knowledgeable person to make the decision about these primary sources. Slp1 already did this so I am confused about why we are still discussing this.
• I am experiencing accusatory and personal words from the other editor which makes editing stressful and a battle rather than working together to created a "neutral encyclopedic description".
• We cannot seem to discuss something that has guidelines and agree. We seem to need an arbitrator to make it clear and make a decision.

What in particular is the difficulty that you are having in editing collaboratively?

• Source issues 1: The use of primary sources for contentious or controversial statements. click the link and scroll down to last paragraph [[57]]
  

(1) See the list & comments Slp1 and we were working on, on Our Lady of Medjugorje page. [[58]]
(2) Notice that The Miracle Detective by Sullivan and Medjugorje and the Supernatural by Klimek that are being contested, were on the Good to Excellent list
(3) Notice that Ogledalo Pravde edited by Kutlesa and books by Peric are on this list - Useable in some situations, with caution - and considered a Primary Source along with many others now used on some of the related pages.

• Source issues 2:

(1) Opinion pieces without including the word opinion in the statement so it is clear to the reader.
(2) Why include a contentious opinion piece on wikipedia when we are striving for neutral descriptions? Scroll down to last paragraph [[59]]

• Source issue 3:

(1) Using a secondary reliable source but POV cherry picking a negative statement rather than presenting the whole picture.
(2) POV editing and biased wording is a problem.

• Source issue 4:

(1) This is the English Wikipedia and there are too many sources that are in Croatian, one page has all Croatian sources. Herzegovina Affair Also this page is one sided - it excludes the Franciscan view of this situation.
(2) Anything that is controversial needs to be easily accessed and read by English speakers.

• Reverting issues:

(1) When a statement is added to a page that seems POV to me, I look at the source to see the whole picture. I then bring to the page, the whole picture. I am accused of trying to water down the original statement and of making POV edits.
(2) Blanket reverting - Sometimes I have blocks of time to edit. One day I worked on the Frane Franic page and made many improvements. Instead of reading what I brought to the page, all 5 hours of work were reverted.
(3) If you go here and read through the history from April 24th to the present, you can get an idea about what is going on. [[60]]

Are there any particular overriding questions that need to be addressed?
Expressed above.

If the underlying issue has to do with differences of opinion as to the nature of the visions and messages of Our Lady of Medjugorje, because all of the clerics seem to have been involved with those controversies, then perhaps we should focus on Our Lady of Medjugorje, and after that is resolved, all of the biographies of the bishops can be made consistent with what we say about OLM.
Yes that sounds good to me!

Do the underlying issues all have to do with how to provide a neutral encyclopedic description of what various people and sources have said about Our Lady of Medjugorje?
Yes.

If there is some other issue also, what is it?

Thirteenth Statement by Governor Sheng

Mediation is needed because there are several disputes regarding the reliability of some sources, content, and wording. --Governor Sheng (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Fourteenth Statement by Moderator

We are now using this subpage to discuss disputes about Our Lady of Medjugorje, Pavol Hnilica, and any related cases. I will make a brief statement, and will then ask each of you to state briefly what you think are the overarching issues.

First, Wikipedia policy on sources has several aspects, which include reliability of sources, primary and secondary sources, and due weight. Reliability is paramount, because the encyclopedia only states what has already been stated by reliable sources. Reliability is a part of verifiability, and if something is not verifiable, it might not be true. Whether a source is secondary or primary is more a matter of due weight than of verifiability, and so is of lower salience.

Second, the position of the Catholic Church on Our Lady of Medjugorje is already described, and we do not need to litigate that.

Third, we will not include unreliable allegations against dead people (or living people) simply because reliable sources say that the allegations were made. Allegations are only worth reporting if they were investigated or tried.

One of the questions has to do with a book in Croatian that was published by a diocesan publisher. What is the relevance of the question about the book to article content? Is there a question about the reliability of the book, or is the question about due weight?

Each editor should state, in one or two paragraphs, what they see as the overall source issues, and should also state any questions that they have. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Statement 14.1 by Moderator

Due weight is a feature of the neutral point of view policy, and is largely a matter of common sense. I assume that you have read the policy. Read it again, and ask any questions about it.

Read the policy on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources again. Primary sources, if reliable, can be used to verify information, but they do not confirm notability. Notability is based on significant coverage by secondary sources.

I reread all of this and will probably still need guidance as we move along.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The position of the Catholic Church is discussed in the article Catholic Church response to the Medjugorje apparitions. The Church has neither determined that the visions are of a supernatural origin nor determined that they are not of a supernatural origin. However, pilgrimages have been approved. If this position sounds uncertain, it is because it is uncertain. In this case, neutral point of view for Wikipedia means basically that the encyclopedia should reflect this ambiguity.

May I answer here? Yes the Catholic Church's current response is addressed on this page Catholic Church response to the Medjugorje apparitions including its ambiguity. I looked over the article thoroughly and found sources that need to be corrected. One sources link is not working, one source goes to a website but not the source, some of the sources are not formatted correctly, one source goes to some offbeat website that supposedly copied and pasted a letter from Bishop Peric, etc... I am assuming that part of what we are doing is correcting and bringing each page to perfection. Is that true?Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Any changes that were requested in the Wording section and were not objected to within 72 hours may be applied. However, I saw an objection to the removal of the Yallop statements. We will discuss that further, but we may have an RFC going out.

Does this apply to the paragraphs being removed as well? Everyone agreed that needed to be rewritten, so can I rewrite them?Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Also does the majority rule or can one person stop it?Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is the sourcing issue about Ogledalo pravde? Also, is there an English summary of what it says?

I have extensively written about this source. Is there something in particular you are asking for? There is no English Summary that I am aware of. I have had to spend a great deal of time copy and pasting to Google translate.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Nobody agreed that you're free to include the content of the second RfC once it is reworded. The users voted no to the inclusion. Not only that, but the sources used are unreliable and biased. That said, I oppose the inclusion of the said content, no matter how it's reworded. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Fourteenth Statement by Red Rose 13

Before we move forward shouldn't we finish. We just finished with receiving comments regarding Yallop's allegation and everyone said remove it. May I remove it? Also in regards to the paragraphs - most said the paragraphs should be made more encyclopedic and concise. I would like to do that and present it here ok?

Thank you for taking on the Our Lady of Medjugorje page and the related pages.
(1) Slp1 and GSheng and myself researched sources for this page and Slp1 rated them for us. See here [[61]] I have been using this list and discussions as my guide. Her plan was to continue to clean out sources and words as we edited. She also said to not use primary sources on this page.
(2) All the seers are living persons so the LP guidelines comes into play. Extreme caution needs to be used. WP:BLP
(3) Primary sources to me mean people who are directly involved in the issue which automatically makes them NOT NEUTRAL and not appropriate for a page with 6 living people (seers). Bishop Zanic, Bishop Peric and Fr. Nikola Bulat are not neutral. Bulat was selected to be a member of the 2nd commission investigating Medjugorje.
(4) Zanic, Peric (Kutlesa) & Bulat [[62]] all have books published by the same Diocese. Publisher: Episcopal Ordinariate Mostar
(5) We need to also evaluate news sources, journals and other academic books. Just because a book was written by someone in the academic field doesn't mean it is automatically a good fit for Wikipedia.
(6) Using sources that are in Croatian is an issue on this English Wikipedia because we editors need to verify.
Questions
(1) I understand reliability as a part of verifiability. Please explain further about due weight and Primary sources vs secondary sources. I can see primary sources used for mundane not controversial facts if no secondary source is found.
(2) Where is it described? "...the position of the Catholic Church on Our Lady of Medjugorje is already described, and we do not need to litigate that."

"One of the questions has to do with a book in Croatian that was published by a diocesan publisher. What is the relevance of the question about the book to article content? Is there a question about the reliability of the book, or is the question about due weight?"
Before I can answer I need to understand due weight in a deeper way.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok yes reliability is an issue because the publisher is overseen by the Bishop who is directly involved in the controversies and who have clearly stated their viewpoint. Therefore the Diocese publisher is not independent from the controversies. Now if an independent publisher like Simon & Shuster published it, that would be different. In regards to due weight here is what was stated about due weight - "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." So due weight is involved too because the source is not reliable and presents a one pointed view. I suggest you might want to consider copying and pasting to google translate the preface and conclusion and perhaps misc pages to see for yourself. Slp1 has already done that too and said that these sources cannot be used on this page.Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Fourteenth Statement by Governor Sheng

I have familiarised myself with the Wikipedia policies you mentioned. Having that in mind, I once again state my opposition to the usage of unreliable and biased sources, especially Klimek and Sullivan, who's work was negativelly peer reveiewed. The views of the both sides can be presented by reliable sources, without reaching for biased authors, such as Klimek or once Sister Emanuel.

The position of the Catholic Church can be discussed in the OLM article, especially so because it is mostly a Catholic phenomenon, thoguh the special article on the Church's position on the matter can be more detailly expanded.

Regarding Ogledalo pravde, it is a book written by Dražen Kutleša, who once worked as a professor at the University of Sarajevo's Theological Institute of Mostar. It was published by the Episcopal Ordinariate. Even if OP would be considered a primary source, according to Wikipedia's policies, primary sources can still be used if such primary work was written by a reputable author. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Fifteenth Statement by Moderator

I am changing the format here slightly, but the principle is still that you should reply to me, and not to each other. Answer my questions immediately below my questions.

There are at least three types of questions that should be addressed about sources, and they overlap but are not the same, and we need to avoid confusing or conflating them. The first question is whether a source is reliable. The second is whether the source is primary, secondary, or tertiary. Wikipedia relies mostly on secondary sources (and is a tertiary source). The third is how much weight to give to a source. If a source is unreliable, we either should not report it at all, or should report only on what reliable sources say that the unreliable source said. (An example is that we do report that flat earth theorists say that the Earth is flat, because textbooks and other reliable sources say that flat earth theorists say that the Earth is flat.) We can report on what reliable primary sources say, but only for facts, without interpretation. How much weight to give to a source is a question of how much weight to provide in the article.

I think that the questions about reliability of sources have to do with particular journalists such as Yallop. In general, questions about sources should be in context of what the article should say. Rather than asking whether source B is reliable and whether it is primary or secondary, we should ask whether a particular statement can be made in the article based on or about what B has said. So we need to be specific, rather than asking to evaluate sources first.

The changes that were approved by the two RFCs should be made in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

(1) Removed words by Yallop per the RfC

(2) First statement made concise as suggested by the RfC - In 1988, the pope, John Paul II, received a group of Croatian Catholics in his private chapel including a visionary of Our Lady of Medjugorje, Marijana Dragičević. Two years later in 1990 John Paul II dispatched his confidante, Bishop Hnilica, to accompany Marija Pavlović, another seer of Our Lady of Medjugorje, on a visit to Russia; "the bishop told her repeatedly how much the pope wished he could visit Medjugorje."

(3) I am working on thisRed Rose 13 (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC didn't give enough votes for the inclusion of this particular paragraph. You might reword it, but it shouldn't be included in the article. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Robert am I correct when I say the RfC opposed how the paragraphs were written not the subject itself. So I significantly cut down the first statement to reflect just the facts. I plan to do the same thing with the second statement and add a new reference to back it up. What are your thoughts?Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Fifteenth Set of Questions

Question - are we just dealing with the Our Lady of Medjugorje page right now in this section otherwise it will get overwhelming? Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Ogledalo pravde What statements in this book are in dispute? Be specific. (We are not going to get a single ruling on the book.)

In my view, OP can be used as a source. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Rather than getting a ruling on the book as a source, we will address any specific statements in articles that are attributed to the book. Are there any statements in any articles that are being attributed only to the book? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

In regards to the Our Lady of Medjugorje page - Ogledalos pravde edited by Kutlesa at the request of Bishop Peric, is used on this page 42 times and some of those have been used 2 -3 times. Do you want to look at each one? Here is Ogledalos pravde as source #31 - attributed to these words on the page - "However, Mirjana gave a different account to Bishop Pavao Žanić, saying that they went to smoke cigarettes in hiding. There, they claimed they saw an apparition, for which they thought was Mary, mother of Jesus. (In a latter conversation with Žanić, Mirjana tried to convince the bishop they were looking for the missing sheep, a claim the seers continued to advocate."

and in the footnote of this source when you hover over #31 Kutleša 2001, pp. 41-42: "'We went looking for sheep and suddenly ...' (the chaplain in the parish warned me that they were going to smoke, they hid it from their parents). 'Wait, Mirjana, you are under oath. Did you go looking Sheep?' She put her hand over her mouth, ‘sorry, we went to smoke’. [...] On the tapes she later recorded I saw that and she kept saying that a miracle happened on the clock and she kept talking about how they went looking for the sheep.")

Here is a list of sources attributed to O Pravde - 31, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 57, 59, 60, 70, 89, 90, 91, 92, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 103, 107, 108, 109, 113, 115, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 154, 155 and some are used multiple times including regarding for controversial issues. Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The 5 numbers that are bolded have another source next to it.Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Changes in Wording What changes in wording, other than those based on the RFC, do you think have already been agreed to?

I still don't see an agreement regarding this matter. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Governor Sheng - The RFCs have been closed. Other changes in wording have not been agreed to. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Other Issues About Bishops What changes do you want made to articles on bishops?

My goal was to expand the pages, promote them eventually to the GA status. This includes working on their early life, priestly and episcopal life and other important segments of their lives. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

In general correct biased wording and replace or remove sources that are primary sources that are unverifiable and unreliable. Clean up unnecessary wording. Again I agree with you to finish the OLM page first then delve into these others pages. Red Rose 13 (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Other Issues About Our Lady of Medjugorje What changes do you want made to the article on OLM?

We need to stick to reliable sources, make the article look more encyclopedic, more "scholarly-sounding", if I may say so. Much of it looks like a fan stand during a football match. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see Be Specific at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

There are so many things to change or delete on this page that perhaps we can begin at the beginning and go section by section. We had just finished the section 1Background - 1.1Political situation with Slp1 and were working on 1.2Religious situation when Slp1 stopped editing for an unknown reason. Also the structure is still in a rough draft format. Red Rose 13 (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Catholic Church Response What changes if any do you want made to Catholic Church response to the Medjugorje apparitions? (If you think that the position of the Church on OLM is ambiguous, yes.)

As above. Make it more scholarly. Without cheering comments. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see Be Specific at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

On this page I found sources that need to be corrected. (1) One source link is not working, one source goes to a website but not the source, some of the sources are not formatted correctly, one source goes to some offbeat website that supposedly copied and pasted a letter from Bishop Peric, etc... (2) I would like to fix the sources and remove questionable sources like the letter from Bishop Peric and replace with citation needed. (3) Also, the source by the Bishop is used on this page - Peric, Ratko. "Međugorje: Secrets, messages, vocations, prayers, confessions, commissions", Diocese of Mostar-Duvno, 1 September 2007. The Bishop obviously is not independent from the controversy. (4) Also some statements are not backed up by a source. (5) There are numerous things to fix and perhaps we should first finish the OLM page? I like your idea of completing the OLM page first and then finish the other pages. Red Rose 13 (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)Red Rose 13 (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Policy Question An editor asked "Also does the majority rule or can one person stop it?" To what? Where? Be specific.

I was referring to the RfC vote.Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Red Rose 13 - An RFC is not exactly a vote, in that it is based on strength of arguments. However, if an RFC has been formally closed, that establishes consensus. There are two RFCs that were formally closed, and they establish consensus. You should have known the answer to that question, but I have answered it again. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you - I think I misunderstood something said early regarding this. So in regards to the consensus on the three paragraphs - what I read was that in the state these paragraphs were in was not accepted by most. So does the editor then make the statements more concise and encyclopedic as suggested? It seems logical to me. So above I placed a reduced and concise statement for the first statement. Should I also do the same for the second statement. On top of that I can add another reference to support the statements.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Sixteenth Statement by Moderator

At this point, the articles that we are discussing are Pavol Hnilica and Our Lady of Medjugorje. We are not discussing any other articles yet, at this time.

Kutlesa Book

I see that the book, Ogledalo Pravde, is used largely as a record of who said what to whom, almost like a transcript. I will offer my opinion on the use of the book as a source, and will then ask why it matters, and whether the editors are willing to agree with me, or whether there is still disagreement. The book is a reliable primary source. The book is not a secondary source. The book can be used to report on who said what to whom. That is really most of what we can be writing about Our Lady of Medjugorje anyway. The original visions either were supernatural, or they were good-faith delusions of the supernatural based on faith, or they were hoaxes. The later visions either were supernatural, or they were good-faith delusions of the supernatural based on faith, or they were hoaxes. Wikipedia needs to report is said about the visions, without expressing an opinion as to their nature. Wikipedia does need to use reliable secondary sources to report on what institutions, including the Catholic Church, have said and done about the reports of the visions.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

So the book is a reliable primary source, and we can attribute statements to it.

Is that satisfactory, or is there a further question or a reasoned disagreement?

If you are going to allow this book to be a reference for a very controversial page with 12 living persons on it, then we need to meticulously look at every edit and every page source. We need to have the words translated as per this guideline: Non English sources guidelines: [[63]]"Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page." Because Perics book edited by Kutlesa has his opinion and Zanic opinions throughout and also gives quotes from the Apparition as second hand information, to me it is not a good reference for the seers or anything controversial. If you insist on allowing this and other primary Croatian sources, we will need to ask Governor Sheng or some other Croatian editor to translate the passages involved. Since this primary book is on this page at LEAST 45 times, we have some work ahead for us.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I can generally agree with your assessment of the book. Regarding the issue of translation, I translated my inserts before and were verified by other Croatian speakers. Where there are doubts by any editor about the credibility of my translations, I will translate relevant parts of certain sources from Croatian to English on associated talk pages. My translations have been verified as authentic before, and I'm willing to do so in the future. --Governor Sheng (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

RFCs

One RFC said to delete certain language. That is unambiguous, and has been done. The second RFC said not to restore certain language. It said that adding a different or abbreviated version of that language might be permitted. That wasn't definite. If you want agreement to add language, provide the language first. This is yet another case of Be Specific at DRN.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Here is the first statement made more concise: In 1988, the pope, John Paul II, received a group of Croatian Catholics in his private chapel including a visionary of Our Lady of Medjugorje, Marijana Dragičević. Two years later in 1990 John Paul II dispatched his confidante, Bishop Hnilica, to accompany Marija Pavlović, another seer of Our Lady of Medjugorje, on a visit to Russia; "the bishop told her repeatedly how much the pope wished he could visit Medjugorje."

Here is the second statement with two more reliable secondary references:

Franic wrote a letter to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, on February 18, 1985, about his concerns regarding Bishop Pavao Žanić, who oversaw Medjugorje, and his approach to the situation in Medjugorje. He requested that the Holy See take over the investigation of the apparitions and appoint an international commission.

In April 1986 Zanic went to Rome to submit his report of the apparitions to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was at the time Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Zanic was summoned to a meeting with Ratzinger who told him that he disapproved of his methods of investigation. Furthermore, the Prefect of the CDF asked "Žanić to suspend his negative judgment, dissolve his commission, and place the entire matter of the investigation into the hands of the Holy See.” Zanic and his commission were released from any further investigations into Medjugorje. Zanic was also instructed to maintain silence about Medjugorje. The Yugoslav Bishops’ Conference was instructed to appoint a new commission under its direction.

Sixteenth Questions

Are there any further questions about the Kutlesa book?

Are there any requests to change wording? If so, list them in the section for Discussion of Wording.

Sixteenth Statements by Editors

Sixteenth Statement by Red Rose 13

There is a huge problem on this page which has not been addressed by us yet = Eight of the references are in Croatian and 4 authors are directly involved in the apparitions.

• Belaj, Marijana -- Perić, Marko -- Pandžić, Bazilije -- Kutleša -- Dražen with Bishop Ratko Peric -- Žanić, Pavao - was Bishop of Mostar

-- Zovkić, Mato -- Bulat, Nikola -- Bishop Ratko Peric
On this English Wikipedia having sources in Croatian makes it almost impossible to verify for English speaking editors. One can use google translate to get a general idea but because this is a controversial page including at least 12 living persons, we have to be thorough, cautious and careful about the sources used. A partial list of the living persons on this page:
The six seers

• Ivanka Ivanković -- Mirjana Dragičević Soldo -- Marija Pavlović -- Vicka Ivanković -- Ivan Dragičević -- Jakov Čolo
  

_________

• Father Jozo Zovko -- exFather Vlasic -- Pope Francis -- Retired Pope Benedict XVI -- Archbishop Vinko Puljić -- Cardinal Camillo
  

The issues that arise are:
"BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects"
(1) "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed." WP:BLPSOURCES
(2) Verifiability is an issue WP:VERIFY "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." How are English speaking editors and readers going to determine if a Croatian source is reliable?
(3) How are English speaking editors going to be able to read the passage where the statement placed on Wikipedia came from?
Non English sources guidelines: "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page."
Other Issues:
(4) "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." WP:BLPGOSSIP In Peris book edited by Kutlesa - there is gossip.
(5) Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see No original research) WP:BLPREMOVE In Peric (Kutlesa) book there are passages where their judgement or interpretation is given.
(6) Exceptional claims [[64]]Exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing
(7) "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." WP:BLPBALANCE

Seventeenth Statement by Moderator

I am having difficulty in understanding what the issues are that User:Red Rose 13 is trying to raise. The subject of the article in question is Our Lady of Medjugorje, which is a contentious topic, because there are at least three possible interpretations of the reported visions. First, the visions are claimed by their seers and some others to be of supernatural origin. Second, the visions may be good-faith delusions due to misguided religious faith. Third, the reports of the visions may be lies, and the visions may be hoaxes. There are various combinations of the three possible explanations. However, Wikipedia is not reporting on the truth of the visions and does not need to concern itself with the truth of the visions. Wikipedia only needs to focus on what reliable sources say that people have said, including what the seers have reported, and what the clergy has concluded in investigating the reported visions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, I will repeat Be Specific at DRN. We are not here to discuss general issues. We are here to discuss the wording of the article.

Some of the sources are in languages other than English. Again, there is a policy on non-English sources. Don't just say that the non-English sources are a problem. Say what changes you want made. If you want everything that is attributed only to non-English sources, then say so, and we can have an RFC to throw out much of the article because it relies on non-English sources. I think that would be a waste of our time and an annoyance to the community, but I will, with very few exceptions, permit RFCs, even slightly absurd RFCs. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Seventeenth Follow-Up Questions

Ok lets start with the Background Religious section which should just be about 3 paragraphs long, neutral and expressing both sides of any issue. I will work on this and present it here for you both. I will have it done by Monday or Tuesday. Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Also please ask Govenor Sheng to indent his comments.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there any specific material in the article on Our Lady of Medjugorje that you think should be removed because of a verifiability issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes but it will be uncovered as we move along. The source Ogledalo Prave edited by Kutlesa for Bishop Peric should only be used for mundane facts not anything controversial and every single Croatian source will need to be translated for all editors. We should first look for the information from English sources.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Are there any specific statements in the article on Our Lady of Medjugorje that you want removed because you think that they are gossip?

This will be fully uncovered and as we translate every source. In my research and google translating I have seen it.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. For example hearsays like in the John Paul II sub-section and all material stemming from unreliable sources (like the paragraph "These new diocesan priests were not welcomed by the parishioners..." from Sullivan in the Religious situation subsection. --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Red Rose 13 quotes policy as saying that exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing. Yes. So what? What exceptional claims are being reported? We are not reporting on whether the reported visions are supernatural. We are reporting that the seers reported the visions, and that is not an extraordinary claim. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Again they will be uncovered on the OLM page but right now there are two sentences on the Hnilica page that is doing just that.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I also don't see any extraordinary claim in the article. There were such claims in the past, for example like here. But such insertions were later removed from the article. --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there any specific material that you want removed because of sourcing issues?

Yes from the Hnilica page - Dražen Kutleša writing about the matter for Bishop Peric who took over from Bishop Zanic, reported that in March 1994, while in Mostar, Hnilica falsely presented himself as the Pope's personal delegate and attributed statements to Pope John Paul II supportive of Medjugorje, which were dismissed as false by the Vatican.

This is a primary source writing this controversial statement from their opinion. There are no neutral, secondary sources I am aware that can back this up. Also there is documentation that Pope John Paul II had many personal and private meetings/conversations with Hnilica and many others that the Vatican would have no idea about.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Like I outlined in the previous paragraph, "These new diocesan priests were not welcomed by the parishioners..." from Sullivan in the Religious situation subsection, or similar insertions from Sullivan, Klimek, and the like. --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to support the removal of words like - the new catholic priests were opposed by the parishioners that were loyal to the Franciscans - like the author Herrero and the editor Kutlesa writing for Bishop Peric and the like.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand your arguments against Kutleša, but what's the problem with Herrero? Explain why he's unreliable. Or you're just copying me? --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Seventeenth Statement by Red Rose 13

The only way that I can answer your questions is for us as editors to begin at the beginning and go through each section and go over all the details step by step. With Slp1 we finished this section which seems neutral and with English sources. 1Background 1.1 Political situation. We were working on 1Background 1.2Religious situation when she left. There are way too many problems for me to list them all unless we move along step by step through the sections. My understanding is that the Background section is just that - how things were at the time when the apparitions began. There are things in the Religious section that to me seem out of place or not necessary. The section is too wordy - way too long by about 5 paragraphs and the Deviant information is out of place. It should just be a few paragraphs explaining the Religious situation in Medjugorje at the point of the first apparition - basic. I cannot be expected to clean up other editors verbose edits. I would hope that you would help as well. I am sick and tired of cleaning up messes. Secondly there are Croatian sources that will need to be translated so that all editors can verify the source information. Thirdly we agreed to present the sources as we did in the Political situation section and the other editor didn't do that. So do I clean it up or is he willing to fix it. Fourthly, the section as is, is out of balance in favor of one side over the other. I see no words from the Franciscan perspective. I am so frustrated and have been working on this since OCTOBER!!! At this rate it might be a year before this page is done and the many related pages. I am not interested in proving or disproving the visions. I am interested in a well balanced neutral concise page. Thanks for listeningRed Rose 13 (talk) 05:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Robert - The OLM page was originally using the reference format that allows one to see the full reference details when you hover over the source. It was originally set up on this page but Governor Sheng a while back changed that on his own without consensus. Slp1 and I both agreed it is best to see the full reference details immediately as you hover over the source on the page itself. I fixed all the references in the Background Political section already. Once the Religion section is complete I would can fix the references again but from that point on each editor needs to do it themselves.Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Robert another issue keeps rearing its head. Governor Sheng believes that the Reliable Secondary Sources written by Randall Sullivan and Klimek are unreliable and even suggests they are Primary which they are not. Please address this in our discussion as you addressed why you think the source edited by Kutlesa for Bishop Peric and printed by their own publisher is a reliable source.Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Seventeenth Statement by Governor Sheng

Generally, I disagree with Red Rose 13 on non-English sources. Wikipedia allows non-English sources to be used. I'm more than willing to translate disputed insertions and present them for verification by other users. All requests that go beyond that, like removing non-English sources, to me sound quite chauvinistic. Certain subjects can hardly be covered with English sources only, one example of such an article is OLM, where a good scholar, and widely reputable Chris Maunder states that Enlgish-speaking academics didn't deal with this subject so much and many sources that existed before were largely propaganda material. --Governor Sheng (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Eighteenth Statement by Moderator

Sources

I have already said that I do not want to argue about or rule on the reliability of sources except in their context of what the articles say. Some sources are reliable for some contexts and unreliable for others. I have also already said that there is a Wikipedia policy on non-English sources, which states that they may be used. The preference is for English sources if English sources exist. If there is a specific reason why User:Red Rose 13 thinks that the non-English sources are problem in the OLM article, state why we should disregard Wikipedia policy and not use non-English sources. I will not agree to making a local exception to Wikipedia policy without either an extraordinary reason or an RFC, and an RFC will also require a reason why we should override Wikipedia policy.

I am asking one more time, below, why we should deviate from Wikipedia policy on non-English sources. If I am not satisfied with the answer, I will forbid further discussion of non-English sources (because they will be allowed).

There must be some misunderstandings because I don't recall saying never to use non English sources on this page or anywhere on Wikipedia. I said we would need to ask the editor bring quotes from non English sources to translate the passages that are being used so that all editors can then verify the statements.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Sullivan is a biased source. We can use Sullivan for basic facts when there are no other sources. Again, however, decisions about sources will be made in context.

Article Rewrite

It appears that User:Red Rose 13 is saying that they want to rewrite the Our Lady of Medjugorje article, piece by piece. That is not the way I see my role as a mediator. If you and User:Governor Sheng can collaborate to rewrite the article, I will place the mediation on hold and allow the two of you and any other editors to discuss on the article talk page. I will not be taking part in a rewrite of the article. In that case, I will be available to be called if your rewrite effort reaches a specific impasse or to answer questions about policy, but I will not be one of the rewriters.

I am sorry it appears that we didn't have a complete communication before starting this. I mistakenly assumed you knew that Slp1 had been working with us for months and cleaned out a tremendous amount of unnecessary words including biases etc... What was left was a rough draft shell. We were beginning the process of rewriting the whole page and using mostly secondary reliable sources. Slp1 preferred English to a foreign source so that all sources could be easily verified but she did not exclude all Croatian sources and neither do I.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

It is true that a collaborative rewrite of the article may take months. You knew that. As an alternate idea, I will create a copy of the article for you in your user space, and you can rewrite it, and then when you are finished, discuss the rewrite with other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

That is an interesting idea... I will think on it.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Contentious Words

Either identify specific statements that you want changed, or work on a draft.

One Example:

• (1) [[65]](In a latter conversation with Žanić, Mirjana tried to convince the bishop they were looking for the missing sheep, a claim the seers continued to advocate.[31] footnote - 'We went looking for sheep and suddenly ...' (the chaplain in the parish warned me that they were going to smoke, they hid it from their parents). 'Wait, Mirjana, you are under oath. Did you go looking Sheep?' She put her hand over her mouth, ‘sorry, we went to smoke’. [...] On the tapes she later recorded I saw that and she kept saying that a miracle happened on the clock and she kept talking about how they went looking for the sheep.")Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Time Required

Of course it will take a very long time if you continue to argue in advance about sources, and if there are non-specific complaints about use of words, and if questions by the moderator are met with long restatements of policy. Be Specific at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Please understand the frustration after struggling to bring unbiased truth to these pages and have been met with constant resistance for over SIX months. These pages desperately need an impartial expert editor to oversee these pages and edit with us, guiding and making decisions.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy

It is not useful to quote Wikipedia policy at length if you are one of the principals. That is the job of the moderator. Ask questions about policy, but not questions that you already know the answers to. Do not waste our time by replying to my questions with long vague statements such as that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok....Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Eighteenth Follow-Up Questions

Non-English Sources Is there a specific reason why User:Red Rose 13 wants to exclude non-English sources? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Please see my comments above.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Article Rewrite

Do the two of you want to rewrite the article without my direct involvement?

Do either of you want to rewrite a draft of the article in user space, for subsequent review?

Each of you wanted to remove material. Do you agree, or will you discuss, or do we need an RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Eighteenth Statement by Governor Sheng

I would appreciate your involvement in rewriting the article, Robert McClenon (talk · contribs). Although there are large portions of the article that are just fine, other parts will need to be given a more encyclopedic shape. I'm aware that a mediator cannot help us with Wikipedia:Peer review, but I believe a mediator could help us to overcome some major issues, and from there the article (or articles) could be further developed without a mediator.

I cannot make a draft of the article, but I could give an example of an outline. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Nineteenth Statement by Moderator

User:Red Rose 13 wrote: "Please understand the frustration after struggling to bring unbiased truth to these pages and have been met with constant resistance for over SIX months. These pages desperately need an impartial expert editor to oversee these pages and edit with us, guiding and making decisions."

User:Red Rose 13 - You say, "Please understand the frustration". Yes. You should try to understand that the problem is mostly of your own making. You seem to think that Wikipedia, although it is a volunteer project, has a reserve pool of "impartial expert editors" who can be called on to rewrite articles. Wikipedia doesn't have such a pool. And you came here, to DRN, for resolution of a content dispute, not for expert editing, and have made content dispute resolution take longer by non-specific complaints about sources, and by non-specific complaints about the use of particular verbs.

If you want an impartial expert editor to rewrite all of the articles that mention Our Lady of Medjugorje, you are more likely to find one at a WikiProject than at DRN. I have been trying to help you resolve content disputes.

If you think that an article needs to be rewritten, you can either rewrite it boldly, with discussion, or you can write a draft replacement and discuss it.

You say that you have been meeting "constant resistance". Is it possible that you are demanding that other editors do work for you, and that you demands are being ignored?

Thank you for your viewpoint but you are mistaken about me wanting others to rewrite the whole article. I am not expecting some other editor to do my editing work or Governor Shengs. G Sheng and I need an expert editor to oversee our editing and to guide us according to Wikipedia guidelines. We both realize we need this. Slp1 was very good at doing this. You are good at conflict resolution and I thank you for your help with that. No I am not demanding others do my work. Seriously I have been volunteering by researching and editing for six months on this one project alone. I am committed to finishing this overwhelming project into a neutral balanced article. I came to conflict resolution because of edit warring. I was boldly rewriting and bringing new information to the pages with secondary reliable sources with comments on each edit and discussions on the talk page. But the response was to revert most everything I did... repeatedly.

Again I gave specific sentences with specific verbs that needed to be changed according to the guidelines regarding bias and I placed the link there. Example instead of saying Claim the editor needs to use said. For some reason you closed that discussion even though it wasn't resolved.

Also I wrote in great detail about the "book" edited by Kutlesa. Did you not see that?

So I wish you well and thank you for conflict resolution guidance.Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Red Rose 13 - I saw that you wrote at great length about the book by Kutlesa. However, you were long without being precise. I was unable to determine what you were requesting. Do you want the use of the book as a source to be invalidated, or do you want to complain about non-English sources? Sometimes when I say to be civil and concise, I mean to be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

To help locate the concise details about my questioning the reliability of the book edited by Kutlesa, please see the Tenth Statement. I didn't see a need to repeat it. Also to verify all 44+ statements on the OLM page using this source, an English reader needs to copy and paste each individual page and place it in a translator which is not perfect. So the person posting the statements linked to this source, needs to translate each page so English speaking editors can determine verifiability and see the context. In regards to civility you will need to tell me where I have not been civil. I am not aware of being uncivil but I have been treated in an uncivil matter on many of these pages.Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Governor Sheng - I am not planning to rewrite the article, and my involvement does not include taking part in a large rewrite.

If the problem is that the two of you both think that the articles should be rewritten, and have different ideas on how they should be rewritten, then you may need to find another third editor, if you can find one, and if they can handle the wear and tear of the conflict between the two of you. It may be that the two of you may have created a situation that drives away third editors.

Do you have a content dispute requiring mediation, or do you have a personality dispute that drives away help?

Nineteenth Statement by Red Rose 13

It seems clear that we need to request an expert editor to give third opinions and guide us on the page as a whole. It appears that Slp1 is not coming back to Wikipedia right now. We were just beginning to rewrite sections that needed it and to delete certain references that were not appropriate. The whole page does not need a complete rewrite but a good going over. I think we should end this Dispute resolution discussion right now. Would it be possible to return if we need help to resolve one or two particular content issue in the future? Also could you set up a draft of the article in user space that I can use as a sandbox? Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon Since I was addressed, I need to respond to complete this case. In regards to your reply I have reread the Non-English Source section WP:NONENG. There are two approaches - one is for direct quotes and the other relates to "if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided." In regards to your guess about why this has taken 6 months, only a person who has read the extensive history or been a part of the long process would understand why it is taking so long. There are many factors. It has nothing to do with the current translation requests. I have made every attempt to be as concise as possible and never meant any disrespect. My expression of frustration had nothing to do with you just with the long editing process Governor Sheng and I have been through. Thank you again for your help with the conflict resolution portion of this process. Please create a draft page for me of the OLM page. Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Nineteenth Statement by Governor Sheng

Statement 19.1 by Moderator

I will reply to User:Red Rose 13 on two aspects of their last reply. First, they have misread the policy on non-English sources to be far more restrictive than it really is, and so are setting up a situation in which it is unlikely that they will find an editor who both satisfies their concept of being an impartial expert editor and also satisfies other Wikipedia editors. The policy on non-English sources does not say that a translation must always be provided. It says that a translation must be provided if the non-English source is quoted. A translation is not required if the non-English source merely reports events. If Le Monde states that Emmanuel Macron announced that France will be providing excess coronavirus vaccines to Francophone Africa, it is not necessary to provide a translation of the French report. The principal function of the English Wikipedia is to provide a summary, in English, to readers of the English language, of human knowledge. Providing them with the English text of the sources, although often helpful, is not always essential. Either you have misread the policy on non-English sources, or you are constructing a new and stricter policy. In either case, your insistence will make it more difficult to accomplish your objective of rewriting the articles. Maybe that is one of the reasons why it has taken more than six months and is not yet finished. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Second, I said that I had often told editors to be civil and concise. I did not say that you had been uncivil. You have not been civil and concise because you have not been concise. I am not commenting at this time on whether other editors have been uncivil.

I am also asking User:Governor Sheng whether they wish to reply.

I may be closing this dispute resolution case shortly. The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard will continue to be available for resolution of further content disputes. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Red Rose 13 - I have created User:Red Rose 13/Our Lady of Medjugorje. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Robert. is there a way to find it from my user page or should I just bookmark it?Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Red Rose 13 - I bookmark pages. If there is a way to get them from the user page, the Help Desk might be able to advise you. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of Wording (Hnilica)

This has still not been addressed:

• Avoiding contentious labels: [66]
• Synonyms for said - words to watch: reveal, point out, clarify, expose, explain, find, note, observe, insist, speculate, surmise, claim, assert, admit, confess, deny MOS:CLAIM Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Should I bring out the list in the old discussion below? Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Old discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I will be able to do this later today or tomorrow (from 4/29/21) The bolded sections of sentences that begins with ("David Yallop claims") lean bias or presumptive and the wording needs to made neutral. We need to follow this guideline - "Words that may introduce bias" [[67]], while doing this. (1) The Bosnian War caused the decline in the financial revenues in Medjugorje, so Hnilica wanted to find a new source of financing. This insinuates that financial gain is the reason he went to the US to connect with visionaries. Yallop has no idea. (2) Hnilica tried to create the "Medjugorje of America" by contacting Theresa Lopez, an alleged seer of Mary, mother of Jesus. Again Yallop insinuates again - we need to have other sources to back these claims or delete it. He makes a habit of adding his opinion everywhere. (3) Lopez claimed that she had a vision of the Madonna at the Mother Cabrini shrine near Denver, Colorado. This needs to be changed to said or stated - a neutral word. (4) Hnilica met with Lopez in May 1992, and she regularly claimed to have visions of the Madonna. They started touring and raised some $50 million annually. Again claimed needs to be changed to a neutral word like said or stated. In the source it says "Unofficial estimates placed the value of these tours at $50 million per annum." We need to represent the source accurately. Again we need another source to back this up, otherwise we delete it.

(5) No citation for this, so needs to be deleted However, Hnilica's and Lopez's project ended with Archbishop of Denver James Stafford's pronouncement that the visions are not of supernatural origin. Stafford formed a commission to investigate the alleged apparitions in December 1991, and the commission presented him with results in February 1994.

From the Hnilica talk page explaining removal of the reference [[68]] "You asked about why I took out the reference by Silk. All you gave was the location of a footnote, again, p 131-132. The information in the two sentences you placed on Wikipedia are not shown in the footnote which consists of one sentence which doesn't even mention the womans name."Red Rose 13 (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

There was a citation for (5), but you removed it. [69] --Governor Sheng (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I see that you replied to my comment from 16 May 2021, 13:19 adding a link explaining why you deleted a reference (and not signing yourself for the millionth time). This is not the way to do it if the refs don't point to full sources. It is better to leave it as it is, as I was planning to add the full source to the article. You just contributed to the confusion and now had in plan to remove the whole paragraph because it was "unreferenced". This wasn't done in WP:GOOD FAITH. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I oppose such changes. Yallop is a reliable source. He makes no extraordinary claims here. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Back-and-forth discussion (Hnilica)

Non-constructive comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Volunteer Note - Is this about the content of the article, the formatting of it, or the sources? 64.121.103.144 (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Old discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Bishop Peric and Ogledalo Pravde - here are a couple of further points. (1) Ogledalo Pravde was published by the Mostar Diocese itself which is not reliable nor independent source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. (2) It is filled with interviews and statements including personal opinions and gossip WP:PSTS and these are not independent from the apparitions. (3) The publications that you posted with links, non of them are Ogledalo or the other ones I listed. Also, these other publications were all published by the same source. (4) Ogledalo Prave is a compilation of statements and interviews of people directly involved. Peric even makes comments. The few references it uses include other primary sources like Zanic the previous bishop and Bulat, involved in the Commission on Medjugorje, Vlasic previous father in Medjugorje, Laurentin, pro Medjugorje (5) It is a fact that not every book an author writes is going to be a reputable nor reliable source. We have to look at each publication that is trying to be used on Wikipedia. The specific one on this page is Ogledalo Pravde. (6) WP:RSPRIMARY "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." WP:PRIMARY "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." (7) Here is the full quote from where you pulled out the first sentence only: WP:SPS "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." (8) I am sure that using one of these sources to create a controversial post is not allowed. (9) WP: Red FlagExceptional claims require exceptional sources. Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include: Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources; Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest; Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended; Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC) This is wrong. The reputation of the Ordinariate as publisher was never questioned by anyone, as far as I know. On the contrary, the Episcopal Ordinariate is known for publishing many scientific works (Example: [70], [71], [72], [73]). It also published numerous books from reputable authors such as: Neven Jurica [74], Božidar Petrač [75], Marijan Sivrić [76], Domagoj Tomas. The Ordinariate also organised scientific symposiums and owns a publishing house, which published books by reliable authors from academia such as: [77], Marina Beus [78], Božo Goluža [79], Ivica Šarac [80] etc. As we can see, the Ordinariate cooperated with reputable institutions (the Dubrovnik Archive [81], the University of Osijek [82]), and publishes the works of credible authors from academia, not only the theologians but also from other academic departments, mostly social sciences. In conclusion, the Ordinariate can be considered a reliable publisher and especially so because of its cooperation with academia, other reputable institutions and because nobody ever disputed its reputation as a publisher. This is wrong. Simply wrong. You cannot speak Croatian, so I suppose you never read the book. Otherwise, you'd know this statement is false. They don't have to be about Ogledalo pravde. It's about the authors. Please read what I wrote, again and again. Again, this is wrong. See (2). Irrelevant. The whole point of me writing the paragraph above your comment is why we can use Perić and others as reliable even if and when they could be considered primary sources. The same point as in (6); Our Lady of Medjugorje isn't a person; though some people might object :) Nonetheless, the rule on living people doesn't apply here... obviously. None of the claims by any of the authors mentioned in my paragraph above are exceptional. They're easily checked via a simple google search and are confirmed by other authors. I'd like you to give me an example of an exceptional claim made by Perić, Kutleša, or Bulat. On the other hand, some of the authors claimed hearing God and seeing Satan (Sullivan; speaking of exceptional claims). --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)